On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:05:10AM +0100, Kenneth Aafløy wrote:
> On Thursday 24 March 2005 00:00, Kenneth Aafløy wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 March 2005 23:56, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> > > Kenneth Aafløy wrote:
> > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, MT352_ADC_CTL_1, 0x40);
> > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, MT352_CAPT_RANGE, 0x32);
> > > > + mt352_writereg(fe, 0xB5, 0x7A); /* AV771 EXTRA: RESERVED */
> > >
> > > All those function calls generate a lot of code. I would
> > > use a static array of reg/val pairs and a loop. And since
> > > this pattern repeats I would offer an inline function.
> >
> > First (and actually only) argument would be that they are not in the fast path!
> >
> > We could provide a routine to load specific (reserved) sequences like this,
> > but what's the point? There is no performance gain, only readability, if
> > these registers ever get documented..
It's not about performance, but code size.
> > Or are you talking about converting it all back to the old crappy style?
>> Ahh, your thinking stv0299 inittab style?
Yeah, /whatever/ inittab style. There's no reason to use inittabs
in one place and single writereg calls in another place for the
same thing.
Johannes